ISRAR ALI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner, praying that a mandamus be issued, ordering the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Works Division, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Prayagraj, to pay arrears of salary due to the petitioner on account of his entitlement to receive the equivalent of one month's basic pay every year of his service as honorarium, in accordance with the UP Power Corporation's order dtd. 5/7/2011, making provision in that behalf for regular drivers.

(2.) The short case of the petitioner is that he was a permanent driver in the employ of the UP Power Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'the Corporation') and working under the immediate control of the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Madhyamik Karya Khand, Prayagraj. He retired from service on 30/6/2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The UP Power Corporation issued an order, bearing Letter No. 622-?????? ??? ??0???0-29/??????/11-5-??/90 (????-?) dtd. 5/7/2011, making provision for the payment of a month's extra salary in every financial year as honorarium to regular drivers of the Corporation attached to a vehicle. The sum of money payable on this account was directed to be the equivalent of the driver's basic pay for a month. This provision was made, bearing in mind the difficult services rendered by drivers as a class. The Corporation's order of 5/7/2011 was made applicable from the then current financial year 2010-11. The petitioner retired on 30/6/2019, but was never paid the aforesaid honorarium, equivalent to a month's basic pay. He represented the matter to the respondents thrice: once on 17/2/2021, and again on 28.09 to 2021 and 18/10/2021.

(3.) In response to these demands, the petitioner states that a memo dtd. 1/11/2021 was issued by an Executive Engineer on behalf of the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Prayagraj, addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Works Division, Prayagraj, bringing to his notice the fact that the petitioner has not been paid his honorarium equivalent to a month's basic pay each year in terms of the Corporation's order dtd. 5/7/2011, which he has claimed. The letter mentions that the Executive Engineer has been instructed to say that the petitioner's claim for a month's extra pay should be dealt with according to rules. The petitioner's case further is that despite the aforesaid instructions issued from the office of the Chief Engineer (Distribution), the Superintending Engineer, respondent No.3, has failed to make good the petitioner's arrears on account of his unpaid honorarium.